Partridge on income inequality

Since the publication of The Spirit Level in 2009, and its ‘devastating critique’, The Spirit Level Delusion, in 2010, debates in the media and among politicians have been gripped by wealth inequality fever. The latest instalment is French economist Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century – a book which is at the centre of its own maelstrom over the accuracy of its analysis.

But is inequality a worthy cause célèbre? All other things being equal, few people on either the left or right would disagree that less inequality is better than more. And any parent will know that equality will lead to a more civil, stable, state of affairs within the family – and this is no doubt also true for society as a whole. But the factors that drive inequality in economic outcomes in a free market economy also produce great benefits. China may now have greater extremes of wealth than it did before Deng Xiaoping’s reforms, but the Chinese live 25 years longer and are 50 times richer than they were 25 years ago.

Yep China is now a far more unequal country. Far better when everyone was poor and starving!

Focussing on inequality – and looking to redistributive policies to solve it – risks throwing the baby out with the bath water. We would not restrain our more talented child just to make her less successful, younger brother feel better, so why should we levy our most talented, productive citizens?

Indeed.

What is needed is a focus on the real problem: that not everyone in our society has the skills needed to take advantage of the opportunities that should be available to all. Among them are the 20 per cent of New Zealand’s school-leavers who, year after year, do not achieve NCEA level 2. It requires a suspension of belief to conclude they are failing because the rich are getter richer. The problem is more complex, but we will not solve it if we look in the wrong place.

The focus should be about equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome – the official policy of the Labour Party.

Comments (121)

freemark

On LPrent’s visit’s today.
Imagine the soporific tones of Attenborough if you will…
” the endangered parasitic red brained Shill emerges from the safety of it’s nest, having sucked out the addictive accolades of his tribe. Like many of his genus, he is threatened by his inability to adapt to a benign & rewarding environment, despite the small rise in CO2 levels enhancing the survivability of the higher species. His traditional hosts are following divergent paths – the ideological ancestors predominantly genderless or gender confused, or subject to Darwinian unattractiveness, therefore unlikely to reproduce. The drones this creature has traditionally leached off via involuntary contribution are now cognisant of the futility & self destructive results of their tribute, and now flock in droves to the brighter future – their relentless desire for advancement finally overcoming the malign influence of the poisonous Shill. Like the Flores cave rat, Goff’s pocket gopher, & other extinct rodents, this ugly creature is unlikely to survive a changed habitat for much longer”

mike tan

Colville

PG.
lprent talking about “our rules’ yet he constantly says that there is no ‘standard”, that it is just a bunch of bloggers.
Making a comment against “the standards” lies/policy/hypocracy is instant banning.
This obvious lie is really blown by the fact that he has said in the past “good luck suing “the Standard” as its an incorparated society.”
I fucking hate incorparted societies with a passion. They are the biggest problem with what kills the RMA. But that is a different topic.

jcuknz

When I read the Labour policy it reminded me very much of the ACT policy which I read a few days ago in this site … but that is not so strange when you remember that many of the early ACT folk came from Labour …. I have not read the National Party’s version but I expect it is very similar too … designed to appeal to as many people as possible in the middle.

Whatever … I really think neither the posters above or LP really know what is going on and what we all should be striving for.

Basically taxation should be based on the ability to pay to support the government machine so that the successful are rewarded for their efforts by a progressive taxation level which doesn’t crush innitiative.

In the Thomas Piketty book it is outlined a brief suggestion which seemed completely reasonable and he believes that the average person [ lets say those with incomes up to a million dollars a year ] would pay around 0.5% of their income while the richer would be taxed up to 7% …. and they would still have 93% of their income to build it to further heights.

No foolish nonsense about equality of outcomes but rewards for endeavour if the person has it in them to achieve and in achieving they bear a proportionate increase due to their ability to pay.

I wonder if many here have actually taken the trouble to read the ‘book’ or in my case the executive summary and it was cheaper and meant I didn’t give up becuase I imagine the weight of facts would make for very boring reading 🙂

burt

mike tan

While i am probably identified as a “lefty” here, because of my strong views on social liberalism (government shouldn’t be involved at all, be it euthanasia, drug consumption or abortion), i largely identify with the right in that i view government intervention in the economy as detrimental to growth (and view wealth distribution as immoral). It’s a real shame that very few (anyone?) are strongly socially and financially liberal (this viewpoint is much more common in the USA). I would like to see an ACT party that represents the social/financial liberal position.

mike tan

I sometimes consider joining ACT so i can espouse these views, but i am reluctant because i think that they are too far “against the grain”, regardless of the fact that i think that this is very ironic (by virtue of ACT being a libertarian party), maybe i should give it a go. I would appreciate the insight of any ACT members (i am looking at you David, but others too 🙂 ).

freemark

Let’s see how the subject of considerable scorn deals with this..

.dimebag russell 21
9 June 2014 at 10:09 pm
because the tories own the media. They are not interested one wit in the truth. It gets in the way of looting the treasury and paying off their mates. if you believe otherwise then you are in la la land. The only way to shift these leeches is put the blow torch on them and dont let up.

Reply
Freemark
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
9 June 2014 at 11:47 pm
It appears to me (and anyone else with a brain & a life) that you have been carved up and exposed on KB after your little hissy fits there. How embarrassing for you and the anonymous Labour MPs commenting here who have in desperation exhorted & no doubt financially induced you to spread the bullshit outside of you 3rd rate propaganda site. Doubtlessly you won’t have the balls to allow this comment through your truth censorship, I’ll make sure it is propagated through the blogosphere anyway. Pffftttt to the envious troughing losers on this site – a great example of why some of us were actually born to rule intellectually & morally.

burt

King Kong

I have really enjoyed Lynn’s contributions over the years. It is much more fun reading his stuff when you have a clearer picture of who he is. As far as I can ascertain;

-He is well into his fifties, has no children or spouse and bagged his first girlfriend only in the last couple of years (draw your own conclusions)
-Is one of the pre-eminent exponents of all things computer (I believe he invented the internet), which is an industry that is known for its hefty remuneration, yet lives in a 40 square metre apartment in a middling Auckland suburb. Perhaps a result of a lifetime of squandering money on blow up dolls, porn subscriptions and lube.
-Claims to come from some ferociously well respected family who, as a unit, can crush all before them. The only member of this family with any public profile is some silly little bird who got tricked into shagging an undercover mole and giving him all the secrets of some ridiculous eco terrorist sect. Many of the others according to Lynn, are on the dole, so quite the formidable “familia”

Manolo

@King Kong: Thank your painting a picture and giving us a vivid description of Lynn Prentice, that formidable man.
Clearer than ever I can see the roots (pun intended) of his effeminate character and personality.

MC2000

I think we all agree we shouldn’t try to improve equality by taxing richer people to death, destroying their incentives and capital resources and and dragging them down to the level of the poor people. That would just be petty and pointless.

Certain people seem to fear that higher taxes on the rich will inevitably have this effect. But look at the US in the 1950s and early 1960s. The top bracket income tax rate was over 90%, and yet the economy, middle-class, and stock market boomed.

deadrightkev

I have to say I have not always been kind to David Farrar and for good reason, however, I applaud David for the freedom of speech he allows on Kiwiblog.

Whaleoil seems to have sanitised his blog down so much that swearing is out, dissent is out and arguing with Cam is a life ban. So everyone online there gets on swimmingly. I hope its not a trend as its not that much fun.

jcuknz

MC2000 … The left are petty and pointless and the right are selfish and irresponsible … so the world blunders on.
The solution is somewhere in between where those with resources pay a fair share in keeping our society going without unduely curbing their incentive.